Psychometric Properties of Manual Dexterity and Eye–Hand Coordination Tests in Rehabilitation: A Systematic Review

Manual dexterity, hand function, in-hand manipulation, and eye-hand coordination are essential components of upper-limb motor performance that influence functional independence, rehabilitation outcomes, and quality of life. Reliable assessment of these constructs is fundamental for evaluating recovery, treatment effectiveness, and motor performance. A wide range of assessment tools is available to evaluate fine and gross manual dexterity, and recent advances have introduced digital and 3D-printed assessment formats. However, evidence regarding their psychometric properties remains fragmented. This systematic review critically evaluated rehabilitation assessment tools measuring manual dexterity, hand function, in-hand manipulation, and visually guided upper-limb coordination, with emphasis on their psychometric properties, including reliability, validity, measurement error, responsiveness, and clinical usefulness. The review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines, and a structured literature search was performed in PubMed, Scopus, and ScienceDirect to identify studies published between January 2015 and December 2025. Eligible studies examined psychometric properties of standardized assessments in adult populations, and methodological quality was appraised using the COSMIN Risk of Bias Checklist. From 26,289 identified records, eight primary psychometric studies met the inclusion criteria. Reliability and validity were the most consistently supported psychometric domains across included instruments. The Jebsen-Taylor Hand Function Test and In-Hand Manipulation Assessment demonstrated favorable reliability and validity findings, while the digital Box and Block Test, Purdue Pegboard Test, Functional Dexterity Test, and emerging digital or low-cost tools demonstrated useful psychometric characteristics in specific rehabilitation contexts. However, evidence regarding responsiveness, measurement error, interpretability, and cross-cultural validation remained limited. Overall, established assessments continue to demonstrate clinical relevance in rehabilitation practice, whereas emerging digital and resource-efficient tools show promise but require further psychometric validation before routine clinical adoption. The overall certainty of evidence remains limited by heterogeneity of populations, variability in psychometric reporting, and the relatively small evidence base.